Yesterday we had complete panic here in Oakham. The Co-op close the pumps as 
they had run out. The only other garage, in the centre of town, had queues 
three hundred yards long, backing up the main street to the level crossing. 
Utter chaos. Don't panic! Don't panic Mr Mannering!
 As we walked past the garage a woman in the queue was refusing to move her 
car to let a petrol tanker into the garage. Her language was amazing.

Rex.

"Norcot"  wrote in message 
news:UzPVe.5071$ws4.2048@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...

> Yesterday we had complete panic here in Oakham. The Co-op close the pumps 
> as they had run out. The only other garage, in the centre of town, had 
> queues three hundred yards long, backing up the main street to the level 
> crossing. Utter chaos. Don't panic! Don't panic Mr Mannering!
> As we walked past the garage a woman in the queue was refusing to move her 
> car to let a petrol tanker into the garage. Her language was amazing.
>

Haven't noticed any panic buying here, but then if it's happening it'll be 
happening in the more populated areas. I've - somewhat surrepticiously - 
managed to fill my tank up to the brim, just in case - but only by buying a 
bit here and a bit there, rather than filling it up at one petrol station. I 
didn't have to queue for any of it though.

I try to use as little as possible these days anyway. Apart from Belfagan's 
Day of Dance in Keswick on Saturday (come and say hello, folks!) I don't 
have to go anywhere very much this week, so what fuel I've got should last 
for ages.

But has anyone seen anything different elsewhere in Cumbria?

ally

"a l l y"  wrote in message >>

> Haven't noticed any panic buying here, but then if it's happening it'll be 
> happening in the more populated areas. I've - somewhat surrepticiously - 
> managed to fill my tank up to the brim, just in case - but only by buying 
> a bit here and a bit there, rather than filling it up at one petrol 
> station. I didn't have to queue for any of it though.
>
> I try to use as little as possible these days anyway. Apart from 
> Belfagan's Day of Dance in Keswick on Saturday (come and say hello, 
> folks!) I don't have to go anywhere very much this week, so what fuel I've 
> got should last for ages.
>
> But has anyone seen anything different elsewhere in Cumbria?
>
> ally

 You sound very much like us, Ally.  We filled up last week at the Asda 
station in Corby- they are by far the cheapest petrol in this vicinity. 
Since then the car has not been out of the garage. This morning the message 
seems to have got through that there is no real shortage of petrol. We have 
just walked up to the market and noticed no queues at the town petrol 
station. I am no lover of the car but we do live in the country and have 
little choice but to shop out of town occasionally. My biggest mileage is 
when we come up to Cumbria!


Rex.

<Johnny@ominous.portent> wrote in message >

> I heard a wonderful lecture last night about the human race
> entitled 'A brief history of progress'. It described how
> humans and our ancestors have been the worst thing to ever
> happen to this planet. All supported by research.  <Snip>


I wonder how many generations down the line before it all becomes untenable? 
I really feel for my grandchildren when I see what a mess we are making of 
things.

Rex. past caring for himself.

> I wonder how many generations down the line before it all
> becomes untenable? I really feel for my grandchildren when
> I see what a mess we are making of things.
> 
> Rex. past caring for himself. 


I agree with you.

One UK supercomputer model says 2075 is when crops won't grow 
any longer. It also said 2025 is the 'if you haven't fixed it by 
now, it's too late' date.

Makes you wonder why there's not much being done...

Johnny-wondering

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

<Johnny@ominous.portent> wrote in message > I agree with you.

>
> One UK supercomputer model says 2075 is when crops won't grow
> any longer. It also said 2025 is the 'if you haven't fixed it by
> now, it's too late' date.
>
> Makes you wonder why there's not much being done...
>


I was reading recently about using ethyl alcohol as a fuel. That breaks down 
into steam when it burns with little co2 given off. Alcohol can be fermented 
out of practically any carbohydrate. Why aren't we working on engines 
running on this. We could recycle any thing like peapods or grass. Anything 
to do with the petroleum lobby, I wonder?


Rex.

"The Traveller"  wrote in message

>>
>> This sounds incredible from where I sit. Shows you how
>> successful the system has been at manipulating the population
>> by fear mongering.


They interviewed one of the protestors on TV this morning as he stood 
outside an oil refinery. The interviewer asked the man why he had caused the 
run on petrol. The protestor, quite rightly, pointed out that they had said 
they would only protest outside the refinery - the TV news had blown it up 
into a full scale blockade.   Needless to say the TV interviewer skipped 
over that bit very quickly. If they haven't any news they make some up.

Rex.

"Norcot"  wrote in message
news:bZZVe.17748$Aa1.13347@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...

>
> <Johnny@ominous.portent> wrote in message > I agree with you.
> >
> > One UK supercomputer model says 2075 is when crops won't grow
> > any longer. It also said 2025 is the 'if you haven't fixed it by
> > now, it's too late' date.
> >
> > Makes you wonder why there's not much being done...
> >
>
> I was reading recently about using ethyl alcohol as a fuel. That breaks
down
> into steam when it burns with little co2 given off. Alcohol can be
fermented
> out of practically any carbohydrate. Why aren't we working on engines
> running on this. We could recycle any thing like peapods or grass.
Anything
> to do with the petroleum lobby, I wonder?
>
>
> Rex.


Yeah, and we'd all end in a ditch, fumely intoxicated and very happy ;))

Edith.
Ooooh, show me the way to go home,
I'm tired and I want to go to bed
Well I drew in lots of fumes about an 'our ago
And it's gone right to my head.

> I was reading recently about using ethyl alcohol as a fuel.
> That breaks down into steam when it burns with little co2
> given off. Alcohol can be fermented out of practically any
> carbohydrate. Why aren't we working on engines running on
> this. We could recycle any thing like peapods or grass.
> Anything to do with the petroleum lobby, I wonder?
> 
> Rex. 


We have the ethanol engines. Ever watched F1? They run on 
ethanol if I remember correctly. They work pretty well I'd say.

You are quite right. I think the Germans are working on 
producing ethanol from biomass (garbage and farm watse etc). And 
we Canadians already make it from corn but the big oil companies 
are fighting the scaling up of production here - successfully 
lobbying the idiots in our government.

The UK is focussing their energy research more on what they have 
the resources to produce - wind and tidal power I believe. 
They'd love to figure out how to store wind energy as ethanol 
though. Sounds like alchemy a bit, doesn't it? Ethanol can be 
stored and transported with existing technology and has much 
higher energy density than hydrogen.

And it powers fuel cells which may be the technology that saves 
us all.

Johnny-talking-shop

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Norcot"  wrote in message news:bZZVe.17748>>

>
> I was reading recently about using ethyl alcohol as a fuel. That breaks 
> down into steam when it burns with little co2 given off. Alcohol can be 
> fermented out of practically any carbohydrate. Why aren't we working on 
> engines running on this. We could recycle any thing like peapods or grass. 
> Anything to do with the petroleum lobby, I wonder?
>

There are some people around here running their diesel vehicles on recycled 
chip fat. You have to get the stuff delivered in a huge tank which needs to 
be kept on your own land, so you need space, but it does seem to work very 
well... apart from the fact that just driving past people makes them hungry, 
of course...

ally

"a l l y"  wrote in message 
news:3oredjF7ercqU5@individual.net...

>
> "Norcot"  wrote in message news:bZZVe.17748>>
>>
>> I was reading recently about using ethyl alcohol as a fuel. That breaks 
>> down into steam when it burns with little co2 given off. Alcohol can be 
>> fermented out of practically any carbohydrate. Why aren't we working on 
>> engines running on this. We could recycle any thing like peapods or 
>> grass. Anything to do with the petroleum lobby, I wonder?


Probably lots.


> There are some people around here running their diesel vehicles on 
> recycled chip fat. You have to get the stuff delivered in a huge tank 
> which needs to be kept on your own land, so you need space, but it does 
> seem to work very well... apart from the fact that just driving past 
> people makes them hungry, of course...
>


In parts of Wales, the plod are trained to 'sniff out' cars which reek of 
chips and pounce on them, so I presume you can't just roll up to Tesco's 
food-aisle and pour in sixteen bottles of 'Mazola' or whatever, without 
paying some sort of tax on it (still probably cheaper than diesel).

It can bugger your engine (eventually) unless additives are added, but I've 
read varying reports; good and bad.  It may depend on how robust one's 
engine is.  Isn't there a company down Tebay way which recovers chip-oil and 
turns it into viable fuel?

In Austria, the buses run on bio-diesel, which may be the way forward.  I 
guess lots of land is needed, though, to cultivate oily crops.  Probably not 
enough in the UK to service our requirements.
-- 
Regds,

Russell W. B.
http://www.huttonrow.co.uk

Please replace appropriate text with punctuation to reply!

"Norcot"  wrote:


>I was reading recently about using ethyl alcohol as a fuel. That breaks down 
>into steam when it burns with little co2 given off. Alcohol can be fermented 
>out of practically any carbohydrate. Why aren't we working on engines 
>running on this. We could recycle any thing like peapods or grass. Anything 
>to do with the petroleum lobby, I wonder?
>
>Rex. 


Three things; firstly CO2 is produced in the fermentation process,...

C6H12O6 -> 2C2H5OH  +  2CO2
  glucose  ->  ethanol      +  carb. diox.

....and secondly, take a look at these two molecules...

Ethanol (Ethyl alcohol)

       H   H
        |     |
H - C - C - O - H
        |     |
       H   H

Octane (major component of petrol)
    
       H   H   H  H    H  H   H    H           
        |     |     |     |      |     |      |     |     
H - C - C - C - C - C - C - C - C - H
        |     |     |      |     |     |      |     |
       H   H  H    H   H  H    H   H  

....and you can see that broadly they have the same construction:
the octane molecule is about 4 times the size of the ethanol.
You get heat energy by breaking the C-C and C-H bonds, and 
making C-O (part of CO2) and H-O (part of H2O) bonds. 
So, if you burn 4 molecules of ethanol, you get about as much
heat and carbon dioxide, as you get from one molecule of octane.
Unless I'm missing something, I don't think there's much in it.

Thirdly, I think petrol engines will run on ethanol with little
modification - I believe the buses in Rio run on ethanol,
but this may be as much about price as environmental
considerations.


-- 
Sleepalot   aa #1385

><Johnny@ominous.portent> wrote in message
>news:1126702283_31253@spool6-east.superfeed.net...


Ahhhh, something to my teeth into! :)


>> I heard a wonderful lecture last night about the human race
>> entitled 'A brief history of progress'. It described how
>> humans and our ancestors have been the worst thing to ever
>> happen to this planet.


So that big f***ing meteorite that hit the planet about 65Ma ago
was a good thing then?

There _are_ other candidates for the "worst species" award;
mosquitos, ticks, fleas, lice, parasitic worms, malaria, bilharzia,
bateria and viruses,...
 
Otoh, we have noteably benefitted certain other species. It's 
arguable that we are merely the servants of grasses - massively
increasing their presence on the planet..


>> All supported by research. 


I wonder who had the priviledge of paying for that.


>>For instance over the past 250,000 years, arrowheads 
>>have become smaller and smaller. 


Britannica suggests that (head-and-haft type) arrows have
only been around for 35,000 years.  
I would suggest (from f=ma) that a given archer can achieve
a greater range with a lighter arrow.


>>Man used to hunt mastadons and huge animals but
>> we were so successful that we caused their extinction. 


It's a controversial theory - corelation is not causation,
and climate change is also implicated.
By that theory, we should also have wiped out; elephants,
giraffes, hippos, water buffalo and bison thousands of
years ago.


>>We
>> hunted smaller and smaller game as more and more species were
>> destroyed. We're down to shooting rabbits now. We started out
>> as hunters and gatherers. Hunters have become herders and
>> gatherers have become gardiners. We now rely on a fragile
>> system of food production - stressed to the limit to feeed 6
>> billion people 


There is no shortage of food, only a shortage of will to share it.
Butter mountains, wine lakes, etc..


>- that relies solely on everything remaining
>> constant - climate stability 


2,000 years ago, the romans were growing grapes in York.
You can't do that today - it's too cold.


>and no more population growth -
>> but of course we are causing global warming and over-
>> population and it will destroy our ability to grow crops 


Nonsense. Global warming will improve our ability to grow
crops. 


>>and  we will become extinct very shortly. The lecturer 
>>summarised that a dead end for humanity was a fitting 
>>end for the  deadliest species ever to grace the planet.


Did he then kill himself?

-- 
Sleepalot   aa #1385

Johnny@ominous.portent wrote:
(snip.................................)


> 
> I heard a wonderful lecture last night about the human race 
> entitled 'A brief history of progress'.(snip......... )The lecturer summarised 
> that a dead end for humanity was a fitting end for the 
> deadliest species ever to grace the planet.
> 
> Johnny



I liked what Kurt Vonnegut said to Jon Stewart on last night's Daily 
Show. To paraphrase him, he said that the earth's immune system was 
doing its best to get rid of man.

Jp

a l l y wrote:


> There are some people around here running their diesel vehicles on recycled 
> chip fat. You have to get the stuff delivered in a huge tank which needs to 
> be kept on your own land, so you need space, but it does seem to work very 
> well... apart from the fact that just driving past people makes them hungry, 
> of course...
> 
> ally 
> 
> 

It must have to be cleaned out. Recycled cooking fat will have all sorts 
of debris in it. I'm surprised there's a foody smell. I once bought 
dirty petrol, with some sort of sludge in it. It was quite scary. I got 
about 200 yards from the filling station when my engine started to 
splutter and cut out. I had the sense to turn back and ask them for 
help. The attendant put some cleaner in my tank and my car was OK.

I use petrol with an ethanol content all the time.

Jp

The Traveller wrote:

> <Johnny@ominous.portent> wrote in message
> news:1126702283_31253@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
> 
>>> You sound very much like us, Ally.  We filled up last week
>>> at the Asda
>>>station in Corby- they are by far the cheapest petrol in
>>>this vicinity. Since then the car has not been out of the
>>>garage. This morning the message seems to have got through
>>>that there is no real shortage of petrol. We have just
>>>walked up to the market and noticed no queues at the town
>>>petrol station. I am no lover of the car but we do live in
>>>the country and have little choice but to shop out of town
>>>occasionally. My biggest mileage is when we come up to
>>>Cumbria!
>>>
>>>
>>>Rex.
>>
>>This sounds incredible from where I sit. Shows you how
>>successful the system has been at manipulating the population
>>by fear mongering. A similar thing has happened here over the
>>past two weeks here. Prices of gas shot up 50% even though
>>none of our gas comes from the Gulf coast. It's alread nearly
>>back down to pre-New Orleans prices.
>>
>>I heard a wonderful lecture last night about the human race
>>entitled 'A brief history of progress'. It described how
>>humans and our ancestors have been the worst thing to ever
>>happen to this planet. All supported by research. For instance
>>over the past 250,000 years, arrowheads have become smaller
>>and smaller. Man used to hunt mastadons and huge animals but
>>we were so successful that we caused their extinction. We
>>hunted smaller and smaller game as more and more species were
>>destroyed. We're down to shooting rabbits now. We started out
>>as hunters and gatherers. Hunters have become herders and
>>gatherers have become gardiners. We now rely on a fragile
>>system of food production - stressed to the limit to feeed 6
>>billion people - that relies solely on everything remaining
>>constant - climate stability and no more population growth -
>>but of course we are causing global warming and over-
>>population and it will destroy our ability to grow crops and
>>we will become extinct very shortly. The lecturer summarised
>>that a dead end for humanity was a fitting end for the
>>deadliest species ever to grace the planet.
>>
>>Johnny
> 
> 
> With other words, there's not much more we can do wrong then.
> 
> Edith-glad that a life, at the most, lasts 100 years only
> 
> 

I tend to agree with you. I was chatting today about some daft old bat 
of 67 who has managed to get pregnant with her doctor's help.

Jp

Johnny@ominous.portent wrote:


> I agree with you.
> 
> One UK supercomputer model says 2075 is when crops won't grow 
> any longer. It also said 2025 is the 'if you haven't fixed it by 
> now, it's too late' date.
> 
> Makes you wonder why there's not much being done...
> 
> Johnny-wondering
> 


My British driving licence runs out in 2026. It used to sound like some 
Science Fiction time.....

I've got the Tardis on a meter outside.

Jp

"Sleepalot"  wrote in message
news:q4chi1le917vlh34meqekeq8hfiatr32o9@4ax.com...

>
> >and no more population growth -
> >> but of course we are causing global warming and over-
> >> population and it will destroy our ability to grow crops
>
> Nonsense. Global warming will improve our ability to grow
> crops.


two years ago we had two lemons appear on a tree, last year we had about 30
grapefruit for the first time, thsi year we appear to have about 100
grapefruit and a pineapple,  Isn't global warming grane eh?  Don;t know why
the lemons didn't come back though.

Al



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Sleepalot wrote:

>><Johnny@ominous.portent> wrote in message
>>news:1126702283_31253@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
> 
> 
> Ahhhh, something to my teeth into! :)
> 
> 
>>>I heard a wonderful lecture last night about the human race
>>>entitled 'A brief history of progress'. It described how
>>>humans and our ancestors have been the worst thing to ever
>>>happen to this planet.
> 
> 
> So that big f***ing meteorite that hit the planet about 65Ma ago
> was a good thing then?
> 
> There _are_ other candidates for the "worst species" award;
> mosquitos, ticks, fleas, lice, parasitic worms, malaria, bilharzia,
> bateria and viruses,...
>  
> Otoh, we have noteably benefitted certain other species. It's 
> arguable that we are merely the servants of grasses - massively
> increasing their presence on the planet..
> 
> 
>>>All supported by research. 
> 
> 
> I wonder who had the priviledge of paying for that.
> 
> 
>>>For instance over the past 250,000 years, arrowheads 
>>>have become smaller and smaller. 
> 
> 
> Britannica suggests that (head-and-haft type) arrows have
> only been around for 35,000 years.  
> I would suggest (from f=ma) that a given archer can achieve
> a greater range with a lighter arrow.
> 
> 
>>>Man used to hunt mastadons and huge animals but
>>>we were so successful that we caused their extinction. 
> 
> 
> It's a controversial theory - corelation is not causation,
> and climate change is also implicated.
> By that theory, we should also have wiped out; elephants,
> giraffes, hippos, water buffalo and bison thousands of
> years ago.
> 
> 
>>>We
>>>hunted smaller and smaller game as more and more species were
>>>destroyed. We're down to shooting rabbits now. We started out
>>>as hunters and gatherers. Hunters have become herders and
>>>gatherers have become gardiners. We now rely on a fragile
>>>system of food production - stressed to the limit to feeed 6
>>>billion people 
> 
> 
> There is no shortage of food, only a shortage of will to share it.
> Butter mountains, wine lakes, etc..
> 
> 
>>- that relies solely on everything remaining
>>
>>>constant - climate stability 
> 
> 
> 2,000 years ago, the romans were growing grapes in York.
> You can't do that today - it's too cold.
> 
> 
>>and no more population growth -
>>
>>>but of course we are causing global warming and over-
>>>population and it will destroy our ability to grow crops 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Global warming will improve our ability to grow
> crops. 
> 
> 
>>>and  we will become extinct very shortly. The lecturer 
>>>summarised that a dead end for humanity was a fitting 
>>>end for the  deadliest species ever to grace the planet.
> 
> 
> Did he then kill himself?
> 



Hi, Sleepy. Have you read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear"?

I enjoyed it as an action-packed thriller, and also for the 
environmental questions that it raises.

I seriously question the future for the UK. I see that Kentish 
winegrowers think it's great. Some sources believe that current changes 
will affect the North Atlantic Drift/Gulf Stream. The balmy 
Mediterranean climate that you wish for will be negated by the 
redirection of the warm waters which give Britain its lovely, moderate 
climate, and its wet and windy winters will become as severe as they are 
in other similar latitudes further inland.




Jp

On Thursday 15 September 2005 02:03 Jpinny wrote:

8><-------

> It must have to be cleaned out. Recycled cooking fat will have all sorts
> of debris in it. I'm surprised there's a foody smell. I once bought
> dirty petrol, with some sort of sludge in it. It was quite scary. I got
> about 200 yards from the filling station when my engine started to
> splutter and cut out. I had the sense to turn back and ask them for
> help. The attendant put some cleaner in my tank and my car was OK.
> 
> I use petrol with an ethanol content all the time.
> 
> Jp


Long ago I worked in the transformer industry. We made variable voltage
transformers in which carbon rollers moved over the windings. Often they
were fitted in tanks full of oil for cooling purposes. From time to time
they needed maintenance because arcing at the rollers burned the oil. The
old burned smelly oil was drained into a sump at the factory and fed
through a centifugal cleaner (Like a big Dyson for liquids!) and came out
just like new oil.

The same method should work equally well for old chip oil (and for the old
sump and gearbox oils that I take to the tip).


There used to be a petrol called Cleveland Discol on sale. It had an alcohol
content. In those days it seemed to make Morris Minors run more quietly
with better cold starting. Maybe I just believed the adverts!

Edgar

"Jpinny"  wrote in message
news:qP3We.6528$TA2.941@fe09.lga...

> The Traveller wrote:
> > With other words, there's not much more we can do wrong then.
> >
> > Edith-glad that a life, at the most, lasts 100 years only
> >
> >
> I tend to agree with you. I was chatting today about some daft old bat
> of 67 who has managed to get pregnant with her doctor's help.
>
> Jp


Did they get married?

:o) Edith.

"Jpinny"  wrote in message
news:eF4We.634$H24.171@fe11.lga...

> Johnny@ominous.portent wrote:
>
> > I agree with you.
> >
> > One UK supercomputer model says 2075 is when crops won't grow
> > any longer. It also said 2025 is the 'if you haven't fixed it by
> > now, it's too late' date.
> >
> > Makes you wonder why there's not much being done...
> >
> > Johnny-wondering
> >
>
> My British driving licence runs out in 2026. It used to sound like some
> Science Fiction time.....
>
> I've got the Tardis on a meter outside.
>
> Jp


Mine lasts for life.

Edith no car

On Thursday 15 September 2005 07:10 The Traveller wrote:


> 
> "Edgar Iredale" <edgar@iredale-we.invalid> wrote in message
> news:dgb2ta$aav$2@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> On Thursday 15 September 2005 02:07 Jpinny wrote:
>>
>> 8><----------
>> > I tend to agree with you. I was chatting today about some daft old bat
>> > of 67 who has managed to get pregnant with her doctor's help.
>> >
>> > Jp
>> He deserves to be struck off.
>> Edgar
> 
> Some people will do anything for money.
> 
> Morning Edgar. How are you. Have you landed in Cumbria yet? Yes! Where?
> Where.?????
> 
> :) Edith :)


You think he did it for money? That's terrible. A doctor too.

Morning - it's pouring here. Well, thanks. No! We've abandoned that idea for
the time being.

Edgar

"Edgar Iredale" <edgar@iredale-we.invalid> wrote in message
news:dgb438$7gs$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...

> On Thursday 15 September 2005 07:10 The Traveller wrote:
>
> >
> > "Edgar Iredale" <edgar@iredale-we.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:dgb2ta$aav$2@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >> On Thursday 15 September 2005 02:07 Jpinny wrote:
> >>
> >> 8><----------
> >> > I tend to agree with you. I was chatting today about some daft old
bat
> >> > of 67 who has managed to get pregnant with her doctor's help.
> >> >
> >> > Jp
> >> He deserves to be struck off.
> >> Edgar
> >
> > Some people will do anything for money.
> >
> > Morning Edgar. How are you. Have you landed in Cumbria yet? Yes! Where?
> > Where.?????
> >
> > :) Edith :)
>
> You think he did it for money? That's terrible. A doctor too.
>
> Morning - it's pouring here. Well, thanks. No! We've abandoned that idea
for
> the time being.
>
> Edgar


I see. Well let's hope your dream comes true in the end. I'll never abandon
the thought at least, that I'll get back home one day. It is just not as
easy as one imagines, is it. The dream is fine but the first step is
difficult to take. I guess when the scales balance it will all happen.

What are you up to today? It started raining here but it's just a few drops
compared to British down pours.I am having a cleaning day at Orly's today
and watching TCM inbetween times. Perfect. I love those old black and white
films.

Spike Milligan was a postman today living with a female artist.

Edith

"Jpinny"  wrote in message news:XL3We.6526>>

> It must have to be cleaned out. Recycled cooking fat will have all sorts 
> of debris in it.


Oh yes, it goes through some sort of processing first.  You can't just fill 
up your tank at the chip shop! I haven't actually smelled it myself, but 
have been told by those who use it that there is a definite odour.

ally

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 21:23:39 -0500, "Alfred Packer"
 wrote:


>
>"Sleepalot"  wrote in message
>news:q4chi1le917vlh34meqekeq8hfiatr32o9@4ax.com...
>>
>> >and no more population growth -
>> >> but of course we are causing global warming and over-
>> >> population and it will destroy our ability to grow crops
>>
>> Nonsense. Global warming will improve our ability to grow
>> crops.
>
>two years ago we had two lemons appear on a tree, last year we had about 30
>grapefruit for the first time, thsi year we appear to have about 100
>grapefruit and a pineapple,  Isn't global warming grane eh?  Don;t know why
>the lemons didn't come back though.
>
>Al
>


You're right, but that is some tree you have!

J.

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 01:15:14 +0100, Sleepalot  wrote:


>><Johnny@ominous.portent> wrote in message
>>news:1126702283_31253@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>
>Ahhhh, something to my teeth into! :)
>
>>> I heard a wonderful lecture last night about the human race
>>> entitled 'A brief history of progress'. It described how
>>> humans and our ancestors have been the worst thing to ever
>>> happen to this planet.
>
>So that big f***ing meteorite that hit the planet about 65Ma ago
>was a good thing then?
>
>There _are_ other candidates for the "worst species" award;
>mosquitos, ticks, fleas, lice, parasitic worms, malaria, bilharzia,
>bateria and viruses,...
> 
>Otoh, we have noteably benefitted certain other species. It's 
>arguable that we are merely the servants of grasses - massively
>increasing their presence on the planet..
>
>>> All supported by research. 
>
>I wonder who had the priviledge of paying for that.
>
>>>For instance over the past 250,000 years, arrowheads 
>>>have become smaller and smaller. 
>
>Britannica suggests that (head-and-haft type) arrows have
>only been around for 35,000 years.  
>I would suggest (from f=ma) that a given archer can achieve
>a greater range with a lighter arrow.


Hmm, yes but in terms of hunting, E= 1/2 (mass) x (velocity)^2 is probably
more to the point

(Geddit?)

J.

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 22:09:06 +0100, "Russell W. Barnes" <russell dot barnes
@ huttonrow dot co dot uk> wrote:


>
>"a l l y"  wrote in message 
>news:3oredjF7ercqU5@individual.net...
>>
>> "Norcot"  wrote in message news:bZZVe.17748>>
>>>
>>> I was reading recently about using ethyl alcohol as a fuel. That breaks 
>>> down into steam when it burns with little co2 given off. Alcohol can be 
>>> fermented out of practically any carbohydrate. Why aren't we working on 
>>> engines running on this. We could recycle any thing like peapods or 
>>> grass. Anything to do with the petroleum lobby, I wonder?
>
>Probably lots.
>
>> There are some people around here running their diesel vehicles on 
>> recycled chip fat. You have to get the stuff delivered in a huge tank 
>> which needs to be kept on your own land, so you need space, but it does 
>> seem to work very well... apart from the fact that just driving past 
>> people makes them hungry, of course...
>>
>
>In parts of Wales, the plod are trained to 'sniff out' cars which reek of 
>chips and pounce on them, so I presume you can't just roll up to Tesco's 
>food-aisle and pour in sixteen bottles of 'Mazola' or whatever, without 
>paying some sort of tax on it (still probably cheaper than diesel).
>
>It can bugger your engine (eventually) unless additives are added, but I've 
>read varying reports; good and bad.  It may depend on how robust one's 
>engine is.  Isn't there a company down Tebay way which recovers chip-oil and 
>turns it into viable fuel?
>
>In Austria, the buses run on bio-diesel, which may be the way forward.  I 
>guess lots of land is needed, though, to cultivate oily crops.  Probably not 
>enough in the UK to service our requirements.


You also have to ask what you have to spray on the oily crops to get them
to grow: fertilizer? pesticides?  Guess what is the feedstock for some of
these.....

J.

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 07:00:00 +0100, Edgar Iredale
<edgar@iredale-we.invalid> wrote:


>On Thursday 15 September 2005 02:03 Jpinny wrote:
>
>8><-------
>> It must have to be cleaned out. Recycled cooking fat will have all sorts
>> of debris in it. I'm surprised there's a foody smell. I once bought
>> dirty petrol, with some sort of sludge in it. It was quite scary. I got
>> about 200 yards from the filling station when my engine started to
>> splutter and cut out. I had the sense to turn back and ask them for
>> help. The attendant put some cleaner in my tank and my car was OK.
>> 
>> I use petrol with an ethanol content all the time.
>> 
>> Jp
>
>Long ago I worked in the transformer industry. We made variable voltage
>transformers in which carbon rollers moved over the windings. Often they
>were fitted in tanks full of oil for cooling purposes. From time to time
>they needed maintenance because arcing at the rollers burned the oil. The
>old burned smelly oil was drained into a sump at the factory and fed
>through a centifugal cleaner (Like a big Dyson for liquids!) and came out
>just like new oil.
>
>The same method should work equally well for old chip oil (and for the old
>sump and gearbox oils that I take to the tip).
>
>
>There used to be a petrol called Cleveland Discol on sale. It had an alcohol
>content. In those days it seemed to make Morris Minors run more quietly
>with better cold starting. Maybe I just believed the adverts!
>
>Edgar


Nothing wrong with ehtanol as a fuel, most model glow plug engines work on
it. It does evaporate quickly though.

J.

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 01:15:17 +0100, Sleepalot  wrote:


>"Norcot"  wrote:
>
>>I was reading recently about using ethyl alcohol as a fuel. That breaks down 
>>into steam when it burns with little co2 given off. Alcohol can be fermented 
>>out of practically any carbohydrate. Why aren't we working on engines 
>>running on this. We could recycle any thing like peapods or grass. Anything 
>>to do with the petroleum lobby, I wonder?
>>
>>Rex. 
>
>Three things; firstly CO2 is produced in the fermentation process,...
>
>C6H12O6 -> 2C2H5OH  +  2CO2
>  glucose  ->  ethanol      +  carb. diox.
>
>...and secondly, take a look at these two molecules...
>
>Ethanol (Ethyl alcohol)
>
>       H   H
>        |     |
>H - C - C - O - H
>        |     |
>       H   H
>
>Octane (major component of petrol)
>    
>       H   H   H  H    H  H   H    H           
>        |     |     |     |      |     |      |     |     
>H - C - C - C - C - C - C - C - C - H
>        |     |     |      |     |     |      |     |
>       H   H  H    H   H  H    H   H  
>
>...and you can see that broadly they have the same construction:
>the octane molecule is about 4 times the size of the ethanol.
>You get heat energy by breaking the C-C and C-H bonds, and 
>making C-O (part of CO2) and H-O (part of H2O) bonds. 
>So, if you burn 4 molecules of ethanol, you get about as much
>heat and carbon dioxide, as you get from one molecule of octane.
>Unless I'm missing something, I don't think there's much in it.
>
>Thirdly, I think petrol engines will run on ethanol with little
>modification - I believe the buses in Rio run on ethanol,
>but this may be as much about price as environmental
>considerations.



All good stuff. 
Most of the South American and consequently all the forward looking car
companies are tooling up to use methanol/biomass as a car fuel.

A really pure methanol or ethanol (on it's own) makes great fuel, and could
be used tomorrow with fairly easy modifications to the engine management
system. The problem is, when you make meths, a lot of other things come
with it: water and formic acid to name but two, which play hell with the
car fuel system.
Water and meths love each other and are difficult to separate.
A great deal of work is going on right now with stainless steel pipes and
immersable electronics to counter this.
(You might not know this, but many cars have pumps and sensors immersed in
the fuel, with the working electrical bits exposed to it.)

J.

"JH"  wrote in message
news:tebii19qgpibr4c759prurr1uh9mk84acm@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 21:23:39 -0500, "Alfred Packer"
>  wrote:
>
> >
> >"Sleepalot"  wrote in message
> >news:q4chi1le917vlh34meqekeq8hfiatr32o9@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> >and no more population growth -
> >> >> but of course we are causing global warming and over-
> >> >> population and it will destroy our ability to grow crops
> >>
> >> Nonsense. Global warming will improve our ability to grow
> >> crops.
> >
> >two years ago we had two lemons appear on a tree, last year we had about
30
> >grapefruit for the first time, thsi year we appear to have about 100
> >grapefruit and a pineapple,  Isn't global warming grane eh?  Don;t know
why
> >the lemons didn't come back though.
> >
> >Al
> >
>
> You're right, but that is some tree you have!
>
> J.


It's a uni-tree, Albert.

:) Edith.

The Traveller wrote:

> "Jpinny"  wrote in message
> news:qP3We.6528$TA2.941@fe09.lga...

>>I tend to agree with you. I was chatting today about some daft old bat
>>of 67 who has managed to get pregnant with her doctor's help.
>>
>>Jp
> 
> 
> Did they get married?
> 
> :o) Edith.
> 
> 

Haha. (Maybe the doctor was a woman!)

Jp

Edgar Iredale wrote:

> On Thursday 15 September 2005 02:07 Jpinny wrote:
> 
> 8><----------
> 
>>I tend to agree with you. I was chatting today about some daft old bat
>>of 67 who has managed to get pregnant with her doctor's help.
>>
>>Jp
> 
> He deserves to be struck off.
> Edgar


I agree in either case.

Jp

"Jpinny"  wrote in message
news:GZcWe.662$H24.660@fe11.lga...

> The Traveller wrote:
> > "Jpinny"  wrote in message
> > news:qP3We.6528$TA2.941@fe09.lga...
>
> >>I tend to agree with you. I was chatting today about some daft old bat
> >>of 67 who has managed to get pregnant with her doctor's help.
> >>
> >>Jp
> >
> >
> > Did they get married?
> >
> > :o) Edith.
> >
> >
> Haha. (Maybe the doctor was a woman!)
>
> Jp


That would account for the insemination then ( ;)

Edith.

"Jpinny"  wrote in message
news:m_cWe.663$H24.188@fe11.lga...

> Edgar Iredale wrote:
> > On Thursday 15 September 2005 02:07 Jpinny wrote:
> >
> > 8><----------
> >
> >>I tend to agree with you. I was chatting today about some daft old bat
> >>of 67 who has managed to get pregnant with her doctor's help.
> >>
> >>Jp
> >
> > He deserves to be struck off.
> > Edgar
>
> I agree in either case.
>
> Jp


chuckle.

Edith.

> Ahhhh, something to my teeth into! :)


Glad I could provide you with some temporary amusement.


> So that big f***ing meteorite that hit the planet about
> 65Ma ago was a good thing then?


Human ancestors survived it. Whatever doesn't kill you...
 

> There _are_ other candidates for the "worst species" award;
> mosquitos, ticks, fleas, lice, parasitic worms, malaria,
> bilharzia, bateria and viruses,...


On a purely emotional level I would agree with you. Especially 
about mosquitos.
  

> Otoh, we have noteably benefitted certain other species.
> It's arguable that we are merely the servants of grasses -
> massively increasing their presence on the planet..


The lecturer blamed women for that. Said they were most likely 
to have figured out how to sow seeds and tend gardens so they 
would not have to wander so far 'gathering'.
 

> I wonder who had the priviledge of paying for that.


Oh come on. Public support of research is an essential element 
of civilisation. And has, from time to time, supported me! I'd 
much rather spend public money on learning more about our 
world and universe than, say, a bid for the Olympics!
 

> Britannica suggests that (head-and-haft type) arrows have
> only been around for 35,000 years.  
> I would suggest (from f=ma) that a given archer can achieve
> a greater range with a lighter arrow.


You'd have to take that one up with the lecturer or his 
sources.
 

> It's a controversial theory - corelation is not causation,
> and climate change is also implicated.
> By that theory, we should also have wiped out; elephants,
> giraffes, hippos, water buffalo and bison thousands of
> years ago.


Nobody's perfect.
 

> There is no shortage of food, only a shortage of will to
> share it. Butter mountains, wine lakes, etc..


I believe you are wrong on this one. There is not adequate 
food nor any other resources for all 6 billion people on this 
planet. That's why we that have don't share. If what there is 
was shared equally, everyone would be hungry and poor. We like 
being fat and rich and giving a pitance to the starving masses 
to salve our concsciences.


> 2,000 years ago, the romans were growing grapes in York.
> You can't do that today - it's too cold.


That's a minor climate change. The lecturer pointed out that 
in the last 10,000 years, variations in climate have not swung 
wildly to extremes where crops failed altogether. The shifting 
latitude limit of grape production is rather minor compared to 
an ice-age for instance.
 

> Nonsense. Global warming will improve our ability to grow
> crops. 


Not according to projections. Climate warming is on track to 
increase exponentially. We're just in the beginning bit where 
the annual change is small and we like it. Perhaps you agree 
with Bush, who thinks when the temperaturs gets to a nice 
year-round average, he'll send a NASA mission to the sun to 
adjust it so we can have that climate permanently.


> Did he then kill himself?


He knows he doesn't have to bother going out of his way. 
Humanity's demise is on the way.

Now I have to go work in the lab. Perhaps I can figure out a 
way to save the planet today.

Hope you're having a good day, Sleepy.

Johnny-starting-his-day-with-the-big-bang

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

> I liked what Kurt Vonnegut said to Jon Stewart on last
> night's Daily Show. To paraphrase him, he said that the
> earth's immune system was doing its best to get rid of man.
> 
> Jp


It was superb. BTW here's where KV's list of things he's tired 
of hearing liberals say is:

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/extras/vonnegu
t.jhtml

You'll have to put that back together...

Johnny-Daily-Show-fan

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

<Johnny@ominous.portent> wrote in message
news:1126787861_949@spool6-east.superfeed.net...

> > I liked what Kurt Vonnegut said to Jon Stewart on last
> > night's Daily Show. To paraphrase him, he said that the
> > earth's immune system was doing its best to get rid of man.
> >
> > Jp


Honest Jp. I've tried to get rid of man many times. I even used a bread
knife and a rifle on him and the bgr's still around.

Edith Nocompredes.

Jpinny  wrote:


>Hi, Sleepy. Have you read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear"?


Hello, no.


>I enjoyed it as an action-packed thriller, and also for the 
>environmental questions that it raises.


I imagine the poor science would annoy me.


>I seriously question the future for the UK.


It's good to question these things.


> I see that Kentish winegrowers think it's great. 


I think global warming would be bad for Africa, Australia and the
southern US, and good for Canada, Europe and Asia. 


>Some sources believe that current changes 
>will affect the North Atlantic Drift/Gulf Stream. 


Journalists are _not_ "sources".


>The balmy Mediterranean climate that you wish for 


Nope, I'd rather the global climate was stable - it isn't.


>will be negated by the redirection of the warm waters 
>which give Britain its lovely, moderate climate, 


Ocean currents are not arbitrary: the waters go where 
(and as) they are moved (and directed) to go.


>and its wet and windy winters will become as severe as they 
>are in other similar latitudes further inland.


If you really thought there was any likelihood of that,
then I would've thought you'd be able to articulate your
reasons. 


-- 
Sleepalot   aa #1385

"Alfred Packer"  wrote:


>two years ago we had two lemons appear on a tree, last year we had about 30
>grapefruit for the first time, thsi year we appear to have about 100
>grapefruit and a pineapple,  Isn't global warming grane eh?  Don;t know why
>the lemons didn't come back though.
>
>Al


You should take a look at the flowers on your lemon tree,
and see if they have both stamens and pistils. Apparently 
(from Britannica) some lemon trees have flowers with only 
one gender - in which case, you'd need another tree of
opposite gender nearby to get fruit.


-- 
Sleepalot   aa #1385

<Johnny@ominous.portent> wrote in message 
news:1126787861_949@spool6-east.superfeed.net...

>
> It was superb. BTW here's where KV's list of things he's tired
> of hearing liberals say is:
>
> http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/extras/vonnegu
> t.jhtml
>

Well, bloodyhell, I'm glad he doesn't live next door to me.

ally

> Well, bloodyhell, I'm glad he doesn't live next door to me.
> 
> ally 


Please see KV's interview on the Daily show site (under Videos - 
Most Recent). I would recommend you see that before reading the 
list so you know why it exists. You may even reconsider your 
neighbour remark.

Johnny-suggesting-you-get-the-context

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

<Johnny@ominous.portent> wrote in message 
news:1126814265_2189@spool6-east.superfeed.net...

>> Well, bloodyhell, I'm glad he doesn't live next door to me.
>>
>> ally
>
> Please see KV's interview on the Daily show site (under Videos -
> Most Recent). I would recommend you see that before reading the
> list so you know why it exists. You may even reconsider your
> neighbour remark.
>
> Johnny-suggesting-you-get-the-context
>

OK, I shall have a look...

ally

<Johnny@ominous.portent> wrote in message 
news:1126814265_2189@spool6-east.superfeed.net...

>> Well, bloodyhell, I'm glad he doesn't live next door to me.
>>
>> ally
>
> Please see KV's interview on the Daily show site (under Videos -
> Most Recent). I would recommend you see that before reading the
> list so you know why it exists. You may even reconsider your
> neighbour remark.
>
> Johnny-suggesting-you-get-the-context
>

OK, I've had a look. I remember reading some of his books when I was a 
teenager and now I remember why I enjoyed them. I still think he's an old 
cynic, but an entertaining one, and I'd love to have a good argument with 
him. I'll even let him live in my street so long as he doesn't mind the 
Arabic neighbours... (I speak metaphorically here as, sadly, I've never seen 
any Arabic people living in West Cumbria.)

ally

"JH"  wrote in message 
news:jkbii1l5gj2l21fn1tl6f190rcfnc00eu2@4ax.com...

8><----------------------------------

> You also have to ask what you have to spray on the oily crops to get them
> to grow: fertilizer? pesticides?  Guess what is the feedstock for some of
> these.....
>
> J.



You can't win....

I shall convert my car to run on lard.

-- 
Regds,

Russell W. B.
http://www.huttonrow.co.uk

Please replace appropriate text with punctuation to reply!

JH  wrote:


>On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 01:13:56 +0100, Sleepalot  wrote:
>
>>JH  wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 01:15:14 +0100, Sleepalot  wrote:
>>>
>>>>I would suggest (from f=ma) that a given archer can achieve
>>>>a greater range with a lighter arrow.
>>>
>>>Hmm, yes but in terms of hunting, E= 1/2 (mass) x (velocity)^2 
>>
>>That tells me that a lighter, faster arrow will hit harder,
>>which complements my claim.
>
>Sorry, what is needed is mass and velocity so that the total energy is
>greater.


My claim is for a given archer. In order to increase mass _and_
velocity, you'd need a stronger archer.  E=fd  For more energy
you'd have to apply more force.  


>If you double the velocity you quadruple the energy, but if you double the
>mass you only double the energy.


Indeed, so it seems to be worth losing mass to gain velocity.


>The trouble is using the materials of 2000 years ago, .... it was easier to
>increase the mass, than increase the velocity


It seems straightforward to me - lose the mass, gain the velocity,
gain the kinetic energy and gain the range. :-/


>Look up the relative effectiveness of longbows vs crossbows in terms of
>penerating ability.


For penetration, the smaller arrowhead also has the advantage 
of smaller surface area - the stiletto heel effect.
(I thought crossbows fired bolts.)


-- 
Sleepalot   aa #1385

"Sleepalot"  wrote in message > For penetration, the 
smaller arrowhead also has the advantage

> of smaller surface area - the stiletto heel effect.
> (I thought crossbows fired bolts.)
>
>

Crossbow 'arrows' were called quarrels. Could be the derivation of to 'pick 
a quarrel' - a violent argument.


Rex.

"The Traveller"  wrote:

Thanks for echoing this, Edith. :)


><Johnny@ominous.portent> wrote in message
>news:1126787434_945@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>> > Ahhhh, something to my teeth into! :)
>>
>> Glad I could provide you with some temporary amusement.
>>
>> > So that big f***ing meteorite that hit the planet about
>> > 65Ma ago was a good thing then?
>>
>> Human ancestors survived it. 


(That's a little misleading - there weren't any hominids
at that time. We live alongside people who think man
co-existed with dinosaurs, and I'm sure you don't want
to be thought of as one of them.)


>Whatever doesn't kill you...


you ignore? 


>> > There _are_ other candidates for the "worst species" award;
>> > mosquitos, ticks, fleas, lice, parasitic worms, malaria,
>> > bilharzia, bateria and viruses,...
>>
>> On a purely emotional level I would agree with you. Especially
>> about mosquitos.


"Emotional level",... riiiiggghhht.


>> > Otoh, we have noteably benefitted certain other species.
>> > It's arguable that we are merely the servants of grasses -
>> > massively increasing their presence on the planet..
>>
>> The lecturer blamed women for that. Said they were most likely
>> to have figured out how to sow seeds and tend gardens so they
>> would not have to wander so far 'gathering'.


Ah, "womens' fault", so we can ignore that too. OK.


>> > I wonder who had the priviledge of paying for that.
>>
>> Oh come on. Public support of research is an essential element
>> of civilisation. 


Aye, and if it wasn't for agriculture (curse those women ;-),
he wouldn't have had the time or means to conduct his
"research" into the malignancy of man - he'd have been
out slaughtering hippos and bison along with the rest of 
us!
Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!


>And has, from time to time, supported me! I'd
>> much rather spend public money on learning more about our
>> world and universe than, say, a bid for the Olympics!


Absolutely! Let the Olympics fund itself - if it can - and let's 
spend our public funds wisely!


>> > Britannica suggests that (head-and-haft type) arrows have
>> > only been around for 35,000 years.
>> > I would suggest (from f=ma) that a given archer can achieve
>> > a greater range with a lighter arrow.
>>
>> You'd have to take that one up with the lecturer or his
>> sources.


Well you were there, I wasn't. Was his evidence largely
metal arrowheads? If so, I would suggest they were used
predominantly for killing other humans, and for that purpose,
range becomes more important because humans tend to
shoot back in precisely the way that mastodons don't!


>> > It's a controversial theory - corelation is not causation,
>> > and climate change is also implicated.
>> > By that theory, we should also have wiped out; elephants,
>> > giraffes, hippos, water buffalo and bison thousands of
>> > years ago.
>>
>> Nobody's perfect.


(That controversial theory seems ot have dissappeared.)


>> > There is no shortage of food, only a shortage of will to
>> > share it. Butter mountains, wine lakes, etc..
>>
>> I believe you are wrong on this one. There is not adequate
>> food nor any other resources for all 6 billion people on this
>> planet. That's why we that have don't share.


World grain production for 1997-98 was 1.886 billion tonnes.
(Check me on this.)
1.886 / 6 billion people = 0.314 tonnes or 314 kg per person.
314 / 365 days = 0.86 kg or 860 g per person per day.

Add to that, 1.2 billion tonnes of oilseeds, meat, fish, dairy
and sugar and you get 1.4 kg of food per person per day.
(Then there's fruit, vegetables and potatos.)


>> If what there is
>> was shared equally, everyone would be hungry and poor. We like
>> being fat and rich and giving a pitance to the starving masses
>> to salve our concsciences.


I'll admit it's a little tighter than I thought, but I still think I'm
right. Indeed, you rather gave the game away with the 
word "fat": some millions of people are eating 2 and 3
times as much as they probably should.


>> > 2,000 years ago, the romans were growing grapes in York.
>> > You can't do that today - it's too cold.
>>
>> That's a minor climate change.


Well guess what...


>> The lecturer pointed out that
>> in the last 10,000 years, variations in climate have not swung
>> wildly to extremes where crops failed altogether. 


Jolly good. Did he have a point?


>>The shifting
>> latitude limit of grape production is rather minor compared to
>> an ice-age for instance.


Indeed, an ice age would we a very serious thing, and would
probably cause starvation on a scale far larger than man has
ever seen [1]. Of course, we are not discussing ice-ages - a 
phenomenon resulting from massive global _cooling_: we 
are discussing global _warming_ - it's a whole other thing!

[1] But not for the N. Africans. N. Africa tends to be a veritable 
"Garden of Eden" when N. Europe and Canada are gripped
by ice. 


>> > Nonsense. Global warming will improve our ability to grow
>> > crops.
>>
>> Not according to projections. 


Yes, according to both recent historical measurements,
 _and_ future projections

CO2 has risen and is projected to rise.
The planet has warmed and is projected to warm further.
Global rainfall has increased and is projected to rise.

All animals are - directly or indirectly - dependant on plants.
The formula for photosynthesis;...
                       light
CO2 + H2O ------> carbohydrate + O2  

....tells us that plants _need_ a warm, wet, CO2 rich environment. 


>>Climate warming is on track to increase exponentially.


Now you're implying a runaway greenhouse effect.
<MP/on> Now stop that! It's silly! <MP/off>


> We're just in the beginning bit where  the annual change is 
>small and we like it. Perhaps you agree
>> with Bush, who thinks when the temperaturs gets to a nice
>> year-round average, he'll send a NASA mission to the sun to
>> adjust it so we can have that climate permanently.


Now _that_ wasn't very nice, was it?  ;-P
(Another missing snip)


>> > Did he then kill himself?
>>
>> He knows he doesn't have to bother going out of his way.
>> Humanity's demise is on the way.


We didn't get where we are today by being as fragile
as you seem to think we are.


>> Now I have to go work in the lab. Perhaps I can figure out a
>> way to save the planet today.


Given that the planet has (very broadly speaking) been cooling 
for the last 7,000 years, and warming for the last 250 years, I think
the planet has already been saved - from an early ice-age.


>> Hope you're having a good day, Sleepy.

and you too, Jonny.


>> Johnny-starting-his-day-with-the-big-bang

er,... tmi !  ;-)


>So do I, Sleepy. You're my hero.
>
>Edith.
>
>pst! Don't tell the others.
>


-- 
Sleepalot   aa #1385

Jpinny  wrote:
[snip]

>Heck, I'm not a scientist. This is a UK local ng not a climate change 
>group for specialists.


Fair enough.


> But since I have a moment:
>
>I have read (Hell, I can't remember where. It might have been Time 
>magazine or National Geographic in the doctor's) that climate change 
>does endanger the North Atlantic drift of the Gulf Stream which gives 
>Britain its relatively mild winters. 


Yeah, I've read that stuff too, but I don't believe it because
I don't see how it can happen.


>I spent 42+ winters in England and  Scotland, and I know them well. 
>They're perishing enough, damp and draughty, dark and depressing.


Esp. in Cumbria.


>I have spent 5 winters at the same latitude as Barcelona and experienced 
>long, deep cold spells which are unheard of in Britain, where a couple 
>of days at -17C wind chill is a rarity even in Aberdeen. That's a piece 
>of piss in North America, where it can be like that for weeks on end, so 
>that your ground looks like mince with freezer burn. It's so bloody cold 
>that the snow evaporates without even turning to water. You get an 
>electric shock just climbing out of your car.


Roll on global warming.  ;-)


>I MAY have to travel to Ottawa in January/February next year for visa 
>renewal. The latitude is the same as about Paris, roughly. The prospect 
>rather intimidates me. The kind of temps there are such that I haven't 
>encountered except with windchill at the top of an alp at 4,000m at 
>Christmas. I'm sure Johnny will advise me.


Ottawa? Canada? I thought you were in NY. I don't envy you that.
 I'd be reluctant to drive into Cumbria in January. If I were you, I'd
take public transport: let someone else deal with the conditions.
[snip yanks wintering in EU]


> If the Gulf Stream changes course, Britain, Ireland and Northern 
>Europe will suffer desperate cold and you can forget about snowdrops in 
>February and daffodils for Mothering Sunday if it's in March.


"_________IF_________"... which begs the question - where else 
can it go?


>There has been a lot of severe activity in the mid Atlantic recently, 
>where all these hurricanes originate. 


There's an awful lot of hot water off the gulf area: the Gulf Stream/
N.A.Drift does it's best to carry that heat away, which imo is why
it's one of the strongest oceanic currents, but there's an obvious
bottleneck through the Florida Straits. My solution would be to 
remove Florida - so it's a good job I'm not president! There is
an alternative: remove a large chunk of Panama, which would
either let cooler water in, or let some warm water out - either way
it would relieve the situation a bit. :)


>The currents are subject to the spin of the earth and the impact 
>of temperature change and salination on water density. 


For surface currents, the trade winds are a predominant factor.
The spin of the Earth is not going to change.
Global temperature change would affect both the poles and the 
equator, so there would still be a thermal gradient between them. 
Since there would still be that  north-south thermal gradient, there
would still be waters of different salinities, and hence different 
densities.


>If Arctic Waters warm and expand, they will almost 
>certainly affect the flow of warm tropical waters northward.


Anything that weakens the current will increase the thermal 
gradient and thereby promote an increase in the current. 
The system seems to be stable.  :-/


-- 
Sleepalot   aa #1385

<Johnny@ominous.portent> wrote in message
news:1126876514_16037@spool6-east.superfeed.net...

> > He's a funny looking bugger, isn't he! He reminds me of a
> > little boy I used to teach in Muswell Hill. But isn't it so
> > reassuring to know that America isn't absolutely full of
> > eedjits that believe that dinosaurs only became meat eaters
> > because of Man's Original Sin. The great shame about the
> > Daily Show is that it is only available to those who have
> > Cable or Satellite TV, so the poor, the stingy or the
> > really glaikit don't have it - and they're the very ones
> > who need it. It keeps preaching to the converted!
> >
> > Jp
>
> That's a very good point. Up here it's on over-the-air broadcast
> TV, albeit at midnight. I hadn't really thought about how
> limited their audience is. What a shame.
>
> Johnny-has-cable-too


I have cabel TV and I can't get shite on it.

Shrugged off,
Edith.

<Johnny@ominous.portent> wrote in message
news:1126881202_16281@spool6-east.superfeed.net...

> > Hah! And up there they're all ruddy Canadians anyway!!!
> >
> > Jp-had-a-Canadian-penny-returned-by-supermarket-checkout-boy
> > -yesterday.
>
> I heard an American humourist (I suppose and American humorist
> is more appropriate) use the expression 'harder to get rid of
> than a Canadian quarter'.
>
> Johnny-also-hard-to-get-rid-of


Pug up, yah old goat. Nobody wants to get rid of you.

Edith.

"The Traveller"  wrote in message 
news:r7OdnZVPqqpd-rHeRVnzvA@telenor.com...

>
> I have cabel TV and I can't get shite on it.
>
> Shrugged off,
> Edith.
>

I was given to understand that there was plenty of shite on cable TV...
-- 
Regds,

Russell W. B.
http://www.huttonrow.co.uk

Please replace appropriate text with punctuation to reply!

The Traveller wrote:


> I have cabel TV and I can't get shite on it.
> 
> Shrugged off,
> Edith.
> 
> 

Oh, I can!

Jp

Sleepalot wrote:

> Jpinny  wrote:
> [snip]
> 

> 
>>But since I have a moment:
>>
>>I have read (Hell, I can't remember where. It might have been Time 
>>magazine or National Geographic in the doctor's) that climate change 
>>does endanger the North Atlantic drift of the Gulf Stream which gives 
>>Britain its relatively mild winters. 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I've read that stuff too, but I don't believe it because
> I don't see how it can happen.


The big thing at the moment is that the hurricanes are getting more 
powerful because the temperature over the equator is rising and the 
water is hotter. A couple of folk have told me about this. They read 
something in the paper.

> 
> 
> Esp. in Cumbria.


Actually, they were much worse in Aberdeen. Windier, snowier and much 
darker.

> 

> 
> 
> Roll on global warming.  ;-)


Could be. Our generation only have a handful of decades left. Those 
"Assisted Living" flats are blooming like weeds.

> 
> 
>>I MAY have to travel to Ottawa in January/February next year for visa 
>>renewal. The latitude is the same as about Paris, roughly. The prospect 
>>rather intimidates me. The kind of temps there are such that I haven't 
>>encountered except with windchill at the top of an alp at 4,000m at 
>>Christmas. I'm sure Johnny will advise me.
> 
> 
> Ottawa? Canada? I thought you were in NY.



I AM. To-nite I am in Long Island.But I may have to travel up to Canada, 
in order to meet my requirements to leave the USA and come back in. 
Dragging the whole family over to London for a month is a trifle 
expensive.  Ottawa's US Embassy is the nearest US outpost that I can 
use. There's a lassie who used to work in Woolworth's in Keswick in the 
office in Ottawa! She was very interested to see my sister's Keswick 
address in the back of my passport. Toronto has one but it's 50 miles 
further.


  I don't envy you that.

>  I'd be reluctant to drive into Cumbria in January. If I were you, I'd
> take public transport: let someone else deal with the conditions.


I could fly, but it's cold just going outside for a moment. Scary!!

> [snip yanks wintering in EU]
> 
> 

  > "_________IF_________"... which begs the question - where else

> can it go?


If it doesn't go where it usually goes, then Britain's stuffed.

> 
> 
>>There has been a lot of severe activity in the mid Atlantic recently, 
>>where all these hurricanes originate. 
> 
> 
> There's an awful lot of hot water off the gulf area: the Gulf Stream/
> N.A.Drift does it's best to carry that heat away, which imo is why
> it's one of the strongest oceanic currents, but there's an obvious
> bottleneck through the Florida Straits. My solution would be to 
> remove Florida - so it's a good job I'm not president! There is
> an alternative: remove a large chunk of Panama, which would
> either let cooler water in, or let some warm water out - either way
> it would relieve the situation a bit. :)


Oh, right. Sounds a good idea. Could you wait until after the New Year? 
My son has a soccer tournament in Tampa from 27th to 30th December. It's 
like springtime in Paris, then, and we'd like a nice break.

> 

  > For surface currents, the trade winds are a predominant factor.

> The spin of the Earth is not going to change.



Occasional events affect the spin even momentarily. I beleive that the 
eruption of Mount St. Helens impacted the smooth spin of the earth.


> Global temperature change would affect both the poles and the 
> equator, so there would still be a thermal gradient between them. 
> Since there would still be that  north-south thermal gradient, there
> would still be waters of different salinities, and hence different 
> densities.


But there's no guarantee that the rogue factor wouldn't change everything.



> Anything that weakens the current will increase the thermal 
> gradient and thereby promote an increase in the current. 
> The system seems to be stable.  :-/


:-\

Jp

"Jpinny"  wrote in message
news:7N5Xe.3335$zN6.1046@fe10.lga...

> The Traveller wrote:
>
> > I have cabel TV and I can't get shite on it.
> >
> > Shrugged off,
> > Edith.
> >
> >
> Oh, I can!
>
> Jp


Huh!
Anything you can do
I can do better
I can do anything
Better than you.

Yes I can. Yes I can. Yes I ca................n

Calamity Edith

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 06:38:44 GMT, "Norcot"  wrote:


>Yesterday we had complete panic here in Oakham. The Co-op close the pumps as 
>they had run out. The only other garage, in the centre of town, had queues 
>three hundred yards long, backing up the main street to the level crossing. 
>Utter chaos. Don't panic! Don't panic Mr Mannering!
> As we walked past the garage a woman in the queue was refusing to move her 
>car to let a petrol tanker into the garage. Her language was amazing.
>
>Rex. 
>

It just shows how simple a lot of the population of this once great
but now sad island is.



Remove antispam and add 670 after bra to email

Be a good Global citizen-CONSUME>CONFORM>OBEY

Circumcision- A crime and an abuse.
http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/

"tarquinlinbin"  wrote in message >>



> It just shows how simple a lot of the population of this once great
> but now sad island is.

> And what's your answer to that?


Rex

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 06:54:22 +0100, Sleepalot  wrote:


>JH  wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 01:13:56 +0100, Sleepalot  wrote:
>>
>>>JH  wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 01:15:14 +0100, Sleepalot  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I would suggest (from f=ma) that a given archer can achieve
>>>>>a greater range with a lighter arrow.
>>>>
>>>>Hmm, yes but in terms of hunting, E= 1/2 (mass) x (velocity)^2 
>>>
>>>That tells me that a lighter, faster arrow will hit harder,
>>>which complements my claim.
>>
>>Sorry, what is needed is mass and velocity so that the total energy is
>>greater.
>
>My claim is for a given archer. In order to increase mass _and_
>velocity, you'd need a stronger archer.  E=fd  For more energy
>you'd have to apply more force.  

No, for a given archer, he can only pull the most he can pull. What you do
with that energy he has put into the bow is up to the arrow designer.

>
>>If you double the velocity you quadruple the energy, but if you double the
>>mass you only double the energy.
>
>Indeed, so it seems to be worth losing mass to gain velocity.


yes, but the problem is, a lighter arrow will decelerate more quickly due
to air resistance, as it has less momentum. It's kinetic energy will then
reduce more quickly.

Why do you think that the smaller faster rounds of modern armaments are not
very effective at long range (800 yards+) versus the older .303/ 7.62mm
rounds. They are great up to 4-500 yards, (even then are not very
accurate), as they decelerate quickly and drop away.
Long range, sniper rounds are heavier.

>
>>The trouble is using the materials of 2000 years ago, .... it was easier to
>>increase the mass, than increase the velocity
>
>It seems straightforward to me - lose the mass, gain the velocity,
>gain the kinetic energy and gain the range. :-/
>
>>Look up the relative effectiveness of longbows vs crossbows in terms of
>>penerating ability.
>
>For penetration, the smaller arrowhead also has the advantage 
>of smaller surface area - the stiletto heel effect.
>(I thought crossbows fired bolts.)


No argument there, but you still need the energy to punch it through.

J.

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 07:27:45 GMT, "Norcot"  wrote:


>
>"Sleepalot"  wrote in message > For penetration, the 
>smaller arrowhead also has the advantage
>> of smaller surface area - the stiletto heel effect.
>> (I thought crossbows fired bolts.)
>>
>>
>Crossbow 'arrows' were called quarrels. Could be the derivation of to 'pick 
>a quarrel' - a violent argument.
>

No, you are just picking the convincing argument....

J.

"JH"  wrote in message >>>

>>>
>>Crossbow 'arrows' were called quarrels. Could be the derivation of to 
>>'pick
>>a quarrel' - a violent argument.
>>Rex


> No, you are just picking the convincing argument....
>
> J.


Quarrel is  an interesting word. In the 1800's it was a diamond shaped piece 
of window glass and glaziers were refered to as quarrel-pickers.
Although I can't relate that to a crossbow bolt!

Rex

"Norcot"  wrote in message
news:q4gXe.17223$hQ4.9687@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...

>
> "tarquinlinbin"  wrote in message >>
>
>
> > It just shows how simple a lot of the population of this once great
> > but now sad island is.
>
> > And what's your answer to that?
>
> Rex


Capital punishment. It's the answer to everything. Nock off the bad guys and
make more room for the good guys.

Edith-running like old Nic was after her.

"JH"  wrote in message
news:2r7ri152amrt6g9p8e8daa2cpapvdnjcfv@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 06:54:22 +0100, Sleepalot  wrote:
>
> >JH  wrote:
> >
> >>On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 01:13:56 +0100, Sleepalot 
wrote:
> >>
> >>>JH  wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 01:15:14 +0100, Sleepalot 
wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>I would suggest (from f=ma) that a given archer can achieve
> >>>>>a greater range with a lighter arrow.
> >>>>
> >>>>Hmm, yes but in terms of hunting, E= 1/2 (mass) x (velocity)^2
> >>>
> >>>That tells me that a lighter, faster arrow will hit harder,
> >>>which complements my claim.
> >>
> >>Sorry, what is needed is mass and velocity so that the total energy is
> >>greater.
> >
> >My claim is for a given archer. In order to increase mass _and_
> >velocity, you'd need a stronger archer.  E=fd  For more energy
> >you'd have to apply more force.
> No, for a given archer, he can only pull the most he can pull. What you do
> with that energy he has put into the bow is up to the arrow designer.
> >
> >>If you double the velocity you quadruple the energy, but if you double
the
> >>mass you only double the energy.
> >
> >Indeed, so it seems to be worth losing mass to gain velocity.
>
> yes, but the problem is, a lighter arrow will decelerate more quickly due
> to air resistance, as it has less momentum. It's kinetic energy will then
> reduce more quickly.
>
> Why do you think that the smaller faster rounds of modern armaments are
not
> very effective at long range (800 yards+) versus the older .303/ 7.62mm
> rounds. They are great up to 4-500 yards, (even then are not very
> accurate), as they decelerate quickly and drop away.
> Long range, sniper rounds are heavier.
> >
> >>The trouble is using the materials of 2000 years ago, .... it was easier
to
> >>increase the mass, than increase the velocity
> >
> >It seems straightforward to me - lose the mass, gain the velocity,
> >gain the kinetic energy and gain the range. :-/
> >
> >>Look up the relative effectiveness of longbows vs crossbows in terms of
> >>penerating ability.
> >
> >For penetration, the smaller arrowhead also has the advantage
> >of smaller surface area - the stiletto heel effect.
> >(I thought crossbows fired bolts.)
>
> No argument there, but you still need the energy to punch it through.
>
> J.


Seagulls chit bolts.

Edmund.

"The Traveller"  wrote in message


>> > It just shows how simple a lot of the population of this once great
>> > but now sad island is.
>>
>> > And what's your answer to that?
>>
>> Rex
>
> Capital punishment. It's the answer to everything. Nock off the bad guys 
> and
> make more room for the good guys.
>
> Edith-running like old Nic was after her.
>
>

  Off with her head! She wont miss it!

Rex.

"JH"  wrote in message
news:ed8ri11ld188jbc2uuv3pbajse94g33bmf@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 07:27:45 GMT, "Norcot"  wrote:
>
> >
> >"Sleepalot"  wrote in message > For penetration, the
> >smaller arrowhead also has the advantage
> >> of smaller surface area - the stiletto heel effect.
> >> (I thought crossbows fired bolts.)
> >>
> >>
> >Crossbow 'arrows' were called quarrels. Could be the derivation of to
'pick
> >a quarrel' - a violent argument.
> >
> No, you are just picking the convincing argument....
>
> J.


They crossed knives. (quarrelled) Their arrows were still in their pouch.

Edith trying to be funny, huuuuuuurgh........doh! :0(

"Norcot"  wrote in message
news:WoiXe.9308$st1.5162@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...

>
> "The Traveller"  wrote in message
>
> >> > It just shows how simple a lot of the population of this once great
> >> > but now sad island is.
> >>
> >> > And what's your answer to that?
> >>
> >> Rex
> >
> > Capital punishment. It's the answer to everything. Nock off the bad guys
> > and
> > make more room for the good guys.
> >
> > Edith-running like old Nic was after her.
> >
> >
>   Off with her head! She wont miss it!
>
> Rex.


Now listen here, Henry.........................just because you
fancy....blah blah blah.....shopped it off.

Edith

"Norcot"  wrote in message >

> Quarrel is  an interesting word. In the 1800's it was a diamond shaped 
> piece of window glass and glaziers were refered to as quarrel-pickers.
> Although I can't relate that to a crossbow bolt!
>
> Rex
>

 Further to this useless bit of information. Some authorites say the 
crossbow bolt was diamond shape at the sharp end and that is why it was 
called a quarrel.

Thought you'd sleep better knowing that.

Rex.

> (That's a little misleading - there weren't any hominids
> at that time. We live alongside people who think man
> co-existed with dinosaurs, and I'm sure you don't want
> to be thought of as one of them.)


I suppose I meant that we are still here but then again so are 
the birds.


> "Emotional level",... riiiiggghhht.


You should see the mosquitos we have here. They carry off small 
children. It's heartbreaking.
 

> Ah, "womens' fault", so we can ignore that too. OK.


The lecturer says it's so. He'd know better than I would.
 

> Aye, and if it wasn't for agriculture (curse those women
> ;-), he wouldn't have had the time or means to conduct his
> "research" into the malignancy of man - he'd have been
> out slaughtering hippos and bison along with the rest of 
> us! Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!


I didn't realise that men were conducting government-funded 
research back when women were cultivating the first few species 
of grain.


> Absolutely! Let the Olympics fund itself - if it can - and
> let's spend our public funds wisely!


Here, here!
 

> Well you were there, I wasn't. Was his evidence largely
> metal arrowheads? If so, I would suggest they were used
> predominantly for killing other humans, and for that
> purpose, range becomes more important because humans tend
> to shoot back in precisely the way that mastodons don't!


To clarify I listened to the lecture on the car radio while my 
son was at hockey practice. He was angry with me for not 
watching the practice as he apparently scored a beautiful goal 
during a scrimage. The lecturer mentioned all sorts of sources, 
I offered the arrowhead one as an example as it stuck with me as 
particularly interesting.


> (That controversial theory seems ot have dissappeared.)


I don't see it as unreasonable for his to generalise that man 
has wiped out 'all the big species' even if man did miss a few 
lucky ones. He was summarizing 250,000 years in an hour.


> World grain production for 1997-98 was 1.886 billion
> tonnes. (Check me on this.)
> 1.886 / 6 billion people = 0.314 tonnes or 314 kg per
> person. 314 / 365 days = 0.86 kg or 860 g per person per
> day. 
> 
> Add to that, 1.2 billion tonnes of oilseeds, meat, fish,
> dairy and sugar and you get 1.4 kg of food per person per
> day. (Then there's fruit, vegetables and potatos.)


I admire your faith in statistics. Unfortunately many people 
seem to be able to prove the opposite. A quick google brought 
this site up in the number 1 spot. I can immediately tell it's 
an extremist site but that doesn't necessarilly make them wrong. 
I haven't read it but it seems to be saying we're doomed. 
There's a bunch of links about food just over half-way down the 
page. Some from reasonable places like Cornell University near 
here. You have more time than I do. Let me know what they're 
saying, will you?

http://dieoff.org/


> I'll admit it's a little tighter than I thought, but I
> still think I'm right. Indeed, you rather gave the game
> away with the word "fat": some millions of people are
> eating 2 and 3 times as much as they probably should.


Guilty as charged. The lecturer pointed out that while we are 
surviving now, a significant climate change could wipe us out. 
How much food we have now doesn't matter if there's none in 
future.
 

> Well guess what...


I don't agree. I'm hearing we are courting a major climate 
change.
 

> Jolly good. Did he have a point?


Yes, we're over-due for a major climate change and we're also 
doing all we can to promote it.
 

> Indeed, an ice age would we a very serious thing, and would
> probably cause starvation on a scale far larger than man
> has ever seen [1]. Of course, we are not discussing
> ice-ages - a phenomenon resulting from massive global
> _cooling_: we are discussing global _warming_ - it's a
> whole other thing! 


Heat is just as deadly to growing food though.
 

> [1] But not for the N. Africans. N. Africa tends to be a
> veritable "Garden of Eden" when N. Europe and Canada are
> gripped by ice. 


I suggest that long before a civilized migration to the garden 
of eden occurs, we'll war our way to extinctiong over dwindling 
resources. Kinda like Bush is doing in Iraq but on a global 
scale. 


> Yes, according to both recent historical measurements,
>  _and_ future projections
> 
> CO2 has risen and is projected to rise.
> The planet has warmed and is projected to warm further.
> Global rainfall has increased and is projected to rise.
> 
> All animals are - directly or indirectly - dependant on
> plants. The formula for photosynthesis;...
>                        light
> CO2 + H2O ------> carbohydrate + O2  
> 
> ...tells us that plants _need_ a warm, wet, CO2 rich
> environment. 
> 
>>>Climate warming is on track to increase exponentially.
> 
> Now you're implying a runaway greenhouse effect.
> <MP/on> Now stop that! It's silly! <MP/off>


I'm not implying. I'm reporting what projections are. A runaway, 
unstoppable, unprecedented, lethal exponential rise in 
temperature that our species won't survive.


> Now _that_ wasn't very nice, was it?  ;-P


I admit I stole someone else's joke. It was a goody.


> We didn't get where we are today by being as fragile
> as you seem to think we are.


We're not facing the same old, same old.
 

> Given that the planet has (very broadly speaking) been
> cooling for the last 7,000 years, and warming for the last
> 250 years, I think the planet has already been saved - from
> an early ice-age. 


Some humans think we are so powerful - even when screwing up - 
that we could destroy all the life on the planet. Is it just 
hubris? Some humans think we are so insignificant that we can't 
possibly affect global conditions. I am cautious. I don't like 
where the numbers are leading. I don't like the fact that we 
rely on non-scientific leadership either.

This is going to sound very cheap, but look what ignoring the 
numbers did for New Orleans. Measurements don't usually lie if 
they are made correctly. You can't ignore the fact that a 15 
foot levy is insufficient to stop a 20 foot storm surge. But 
somehow thier leaders did. Not only that but they failed to 
adequately maintain the inadequate levy system. They had always 
dodged the bullet before. They ignored the numbers and gambled 
on their faith.

I don't think we can wait to see if global warming predictions 
are 100% accurate. Some predicitons say we've got to turn the 
current trends around by 2025. Are we just going to argue about 
it until then?

Johnny-genuinely-concerned

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

a l l y wrote:

> "Jpinny"  wrote in message 
> news:JOzWe.2967$zN6.1195@fe10.lga...
> 
>>Jp-had-a-Canadian-penny-returned-by-supermarket-checkout-boy-yesterday.
>>
> 
> 
> Yesterday Steve found a dime inside the case of a sax he'd bought off eBay. 
> We were quite excited.
> 
> ally-easily-pleased
> 
> 


Can you spare it.. brother?

Buskingly
Ron (Yip) O'berg




-- 
Lune Valley Audio
Public address system
Hire, Sales, Repairs
www.lunevalleyaudio.com

> Ottawa? Canada? I thought you were in NY. I don't envy you
> that. 


Hey! It's sunny and 24 C here in Ottawa! Well, maybe not in 
January. You just need to dress for the conditions. All that 
non-existent global warming is making this place quite nice most 
of the year. Polar ice-caps melting won't flood us out either.

Johnny-in-a-good-spot-for-global-warming

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Ron(UK)"  wrote in message 
news:dgmh9e$2r3$2@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

>a l l y wrote:
>> "Jpinny"  wrote in message 
>> news:JOzWe.2967$zN6.1195@fe10.lga...
>>
>>>Jp-had-a-Canadian-penny-returned-by-supermarket-checkout-boy-yesterday.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yesterday Steve found a dime inside the case of a sax he'd bought off 
>> eBay. We were quite excited.
>>
>> ally-easily-pleased
>>
>>
>
> Can you spare it.. brother?
>

Say, don't you remember? You called me Al... it was Al all the time...
Say, don't you remember? I'm your pal!
Buddy, can you spare a dime?

No, I can't.

ally

"a l l y"  wrote in message
news:3p86c9F92ck9U6@individual.net...

>
> "Ron(UK)"  wrote in message
> news:dgmh9e$2r3$2@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> >a l l y wrote:
> >> "Jpinny"  wrote in message
> >> news:JOzWe.2967$zN6.1195@fe10.lga...
> >>
> >>>Jp-had-a-Canadian-penny-returned-by-supermarket-checkout-boy-yesterday.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Yesterday Steve found a dime inside the case of a sax he'd bought off
> >> eBay. We were quite excited.
> >>
> >> ally-easily-pleased
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Can you spare it.. brother?
> >
> Say, don't you remember? You called me Al... it was Al all the time...
> Say, don't you remember? I'm your pal!
> Buddy, can you spare a dime?
>
> No, I can't.
>
> ally


Once I built castle, way up high

a l l y wrote:

> "Ron(UK)"  wrote in message 
> news:dgmh9e$2r3$2@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> 
>>a l l y wrote:
>>
>>>"Jpinny"  wrote in message 
>>>news:JOzWe.2967$zN6.1195@fe10.lga...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jp-had-a-Canadian-penny-returned-by-supermarket-checkout-boy-yesterday.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Yesterday Steve found a dime inside the case of a sax he'd bought off 
>>>eBay. We were quite excited.
>>>
>>>ally-easily-pleased
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Can you spare it.. brother?
>>
> 
> Say, don't you remember? You called me Al... it was Al all the time...
> Say, don't you remember? I'm your pal!
> Buddy, can you spare a dime?
> 
> No, I can't.
> 
> ally 
> 
> 

You could always buy a dime bar with it

you can call me Betty, you can call me Betty, and I`ll call you Al

Artlessly

Ron (Betty) O'Cheapskate



-- 
Lune Valley Audio
Public address system
Hire, Sales, Repairs
www.lunevalleyaudio.com

JH  wrote:


>On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 06:54:22 +0100, Sleepalot  wrote:
>
>>JH  wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 01:13:56 +0100, Sleepalot  wrote:
>>>
>>>>JH  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 01:15:14 +0100, Sleepalot  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>I would suggest (from f=ma) that a given archer can achieve
>>>>>>a greater range with a lighter arrow.
>>>>>
>>>>>Hmm, yes but in terms of hunting, E= 1/2 (mass) x (velocity)^2 
>>>>
>>>>That tells me that a lighter, faster arrow will hit harder,
>>>>which complements my claim.
>>>
>>>Sorry, what is needed is mass and velocity so that the total energy is
>>>greater.
>>
>>My claim is for a given archer. In order to increase mass _and_
>>velocity, you'd need a stronger archer.  E=fd  For more energy
>>you'd have to apply more force.  
>No, for a given archer, he can only pull the most he can pull. 


"What we have here is a problem of communication." 
(Name that film.)
We seem to be saying the same things and yet disagreeing.  :-/
  

>What you do
>with that energy he has put into the bow is up to the arrow designer.

>>>If you double the velocity you quadruple the energy, but if you double the
>>>mass you only double the energy.
>>
>>Indeed, so it seems to be worth losing mass to gain velocity.
>
>yes, but the problem is, a lighter arrow will decelerate more quickly due
>to air resistance, as it has less momentum. It's kinetic energy will then
>reduce more quickly.


I tried it algebraically with arrows of different masses - it was
horrible. Itried putting some numbers in, and it was even worse! 
And that's just the basic stuff - air resistance is way beyond me. :(


>Why do you think that the smaller faster rounds of modern armaments are not
>very effective at long range (800 yards+) versus the older .303/ 7.62mm
>rounds. They are great up to 4-500 yards, (even then are not very
>accurate), as they decelerate quickly and drop away.
>Long range, sniper rounds are heavier.


I think that's quite a complex question: different quantities of
propellant (perhaps diffent chemical composition of propellant),
barrel length, rifleing, projectile shape and density ... and nothing
that I know much about.

[snip]

>No argument there, but you still need the energy to punch it through.


Sure. Given that the energy input from the archer (or rather from the
bow when the archer releases) is constant, (with a perfect bow, and
all losses ignored) shouldn't arrows of different masses have the
same kinetic energy ? Shouldn't Eout = Ein ? 


-- 
Sleepalot   aa #1385

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:34:26 +0100, Sleepalot  wrote:


>>>My claim is for a given archer. In order to increase mass _and_
>>>velocity, you'd need a stronger archer.  E=fd  For more energy
>>>you'd have to apply more force.  
>>No, for a given archer, he can only pull the most he can pull. 
>
>"What we have here is a problem of communication." 
>(Name that film.)
>We seem to be saying the same things and yet disagreeing.  :-/
>  
>>What you do
>>with that energy he has put into the bow is up to the arrow designer.
>
>>>>If you double the velocity you quadruple the energy, but if you double the
>>>>mass you only double the energy.
>>>
>>>Indeed, so it seems to be worth losing mass to gain velocity.
>>
>>yes, but the problem is, a lighter arrow will decelerate more quickly due
>>to air resistance, as it has less momentum. It's kinetic energy will then
>>reduce more quickly.
>
>I tried it algebraically with arrows of different masses - it was
>horrible. Itried putting some numbers in, and it was even worse! 
>And that's just the basic stuff - air resistance is way beyond me. :(
>
>>Why do you think that the smaller faster rounds of modern armaments are not
>>very effective at long range (800 yards+) versus the older .303/ 7.62mm
>>rounds. They are great up to 4-500 yards, (even then are not very
>>accurate), as they decelerate quickly and drop away.
>>Long range, sniper rounds are heavier.
>
>I think that's quite a complex question: different quantities of
>propellant (perhaps diffent chemical composition of propellant),
>barrel length, rifleing, projectile shape and density ... and nothing
>that I know much about.
>
>[snip]
>>No argument there, but you still need the energy to punch it through.
>
>Sure. Given that the energy input from the archer (or rather from the
>bow when the archer releases) is constant, (with a perfect bow, and
>all losses ignored) shouldn't arrows of different masses have the
>same kinetic energy ? Shouldn't Eout = Ein ? 


Yes, but we were talking (originally) about cavemen and range.

I mentioned materials, and then we got on to the above.
Your contention was that velocity was more important.

What counts is the energy left at max range, with the materials available
to your average caveman, ie: no iron, no machinery to "pull" the bow" (as
in a crossbow). My contention is that _at maximum range_, a longbow (woood
and sinew) with a long/heavy arrow (wood/feathers/stone or bronze head)
will do the job better than a light fast arrow .

When iron was available, it could add mass, but the arrow could be
streamlined.

(Crcy rules OK)

http://livinghistory.co.uk/homepages/purbrook_bowmen/hundred_years_war.htm

Regards

J.

JH  wrote:


>On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:34:26 +0100, Sleepalot  wrote:

[snip]
 Shouldn't Eout = Ein ? 

>
>Yes, but we were talking (originally) about cavemen and range.


We don't really know if the discussion is limited to cavemen
(though I think it should be) - the period given was "the past
250,000 years".
The major thesis is "man is a malignant species", and one 
minor case is "man has caused certain extinctions": the evidence
being the reduction of arrowhead sizes with time. (I don't really
know, but I presume the evidence is true.)
Now then, the reduction of arrowhead size with prey size is 
a correlation, but correlation is not causation - there may be
other reasons for a gradual reduction in arrowhead sizes. I
suggested range, and I'm not sure if you agree that - all else
being equal - the lighter arrow will give the longer range. I'm
sure that you think my light arrow would bounce off a mastodons'
bum, but you haven't persuaded me of that, and otoh I don't
think your heavy arrow will be any better. We seem to agree 
that kinetic energy is key.
Really, a demonstration is required. A physical demo is obviously
impractical, and I've tried to make a mathematical model and failed. 
So we're at a bit of an impasse. (It's not really a problem - I could
go for alternative explanations for those extinctions:- disease,
climate change, etc..)


>(Crcy rules OK)
>
>http://livinghistory.co.uk/homepages/purbrook_bowmen/hundred_years_war.htm


I'll have a look while I post this. (I have a horrible feeling of 
"post in haste, repent at leisure.") 

>

Regards


-- 
Sleepalot   aa #1385

"Sleepalot"  wrote in message
news:4r01j1h4feeueue42t3vq8fb73u0sic8tk@4ax.com...

> JH  wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:34:26 +0100, Sleepalot 
wrote:
> [snip]
>  Shouldn't Eout = Ein ?
> >
> >Yes, but we were talking (originally) about cavemen and range.
>
> We don't really know if the discussion is limited to cavemen
> (though I think it should be) - the period given was "the past
> 250,000 years".
> The major thesis is "man is a malignant species", and one
> minor case is "man has caused certain extinctions": the evidence
> being the reduction of arrowhead sizes with time. (I don't really
> know, but I presume the evidence is true.)
> Now then, the reduction of arrowhead size with prey size is
> a correlation, but correlation is not causation - there may be
> other reasons for a gradual reduction in arrowhead sizes. I
> suggested range, and I'm not sure if you agree that - all else
> being equal - the lighter arrow will give the longer range. I'm
> sure that you think my light arrow would bounce off a mastodons'
> bum, but you haven't persuaded me of that, and otoh I don't
> think your heavy arrow will be any better. We seem to agree
> that kinetic energy is key.
> Really, a demonstration is required. A physical demo is obviously
> impractical, and I've tried to make a mathematical model and failed.
> So we're at a bit of an impasse. (It's not really a problem - I could
> go for alternative explanations for those extinctions:- disease,
> climate change, etc..)
>
> >(Crcy rules OK)
> >
>
>http://livinghistory.co.uk/homepages/purbrook_bowmen/hundred_years_war.htm
>
> I'll have a look while I post this. (I have a horrible feeling of
> "post in haste, repent at leisure.")
> >
> Regards
>
> Sleepalot   aa #1385


Sleepy. You know that the longer you boil an egg, the softer it gets.

Edith Pressurecooker

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 06:48:25 +0100, Sleepalot  wrote:


>JH  wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:34:26 +0100, Sleepalot  wrote:
>[snip]
> Shouldn't Eout = Ein ? 
>>
>>Yes, but we were talking (originally) about cavemen and range.
>
>We don't really know if the discussion is limited to cavemen
>(though I think it should be) - the period given was "the past
>250,000 years".
>The major thesis is "man is a malignant species", and one 
>minor case is "man has caused certain extinctions": the evidence
>being the reduction of arrowhead sizes with time. (I don't really
>know, but I presume the evidence is true.)
>Now then, the reduction of arrowhead size with prey size is 
>a correlation, but correlation is not causation - there may be
>other reasons for a gradual reduction in arrowhead sizes. I
>suggested range, and I'm not sure if you agree that - all else
>being equal - the lighter arrow will give the longer range. I'm
>sure that you think my light arrow would bounce off a mastodons'
>bum, but you haven't persuaded me of that, and otoh I don't
>think your heavy arrow will be any better. We seem to agree 
>that kinetic energy is key.
>Really, a demonstration is required. A physical demo is obviously
>impractical, and I've tried to make a mathematical model and failed. 
>So we're at a bit of an impasse. (It's not really a problem - I could
>go for alternative explanations for those extinctions:- disease,
>climate change, etc..)
>
>>(Crcy rules OK)
>>
>>http://livinghistory.co.uk/homepages/purbrook_bowmen/hundred_years_war.htm
>
>I'll have a look while I post this. (I have a horrible feeling of 
>"post in haste, repent at leisure.") 
>>
>Regards


 :-) Fair enough, but it has been an interesting discussion.

Now I have retired from one job, I might propose that we do the experiment:
build a good longbow, you build your arrows, and I'll build mine, then, at
a range of around 200 yards, we both fire them at a usenet troll, (securely
tied to an oak tree), and measure the loudness of the yelps with a decibel
meter. 
(Just to keep it scientific and shed off charges of gratuitous
violence.....)

J.

"JH"  wrote in message
news:o752j150s326jm1t953c9pvicnt4nslgb8@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 06:48:25 +0100, Sleepalot  wrote:
>
> >JH  wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:34:26 +0100, Sleepalot 
wrote:
> >[snip]
> > Shouldn't Eout = Ein ?
> >>
> >>Yes, but we were talking (originally) about cavemen and range.
> >
> >We don't really know if the discussion is limited to cavemen
> >(though I think it should be) - the period given was "the past
> >250,000 years".
> >The major thesis is "man is a malignant species", and one
> >minor case is "man has caused certain extinctions": the evidence
> >being the reduction of arrowhead sizes with time. (I don't really
> >know, but I presume the evidence is true.)
> >Now then, the reduction of arrowhead size with prey size is
> >a correlation, but correlation is not causation - there may be
> >other reasons for a gradual reduction in arrowhead sizes. I
> >suggested range, and I'm not sure if you agree that - all else
> >being equal - the lighter arrow will give the longer range. I'm
> >sure that you think my light arrow would bounce off a mastodons'
> >bum, but you haven't persuaded me of that, and otoh I don't
> >think your heavy arrow will be any better. We seem to agree
> >that kinetic energy is key.
> >Really, a demonstration is required. A physical demo is obviously
> >impractical, and I've tried to make a mathematical model and failed.
> >So we're at a bit of an impasse. (It's not really a problem - I could
> >go for alternative explanations for those extinctions:- disease,
> >climate change, etc..)
> >
> >>(Crcy rules OK)
> >>
>
>>http://livinghistory.co.uk/homepages/purbrook_bowmen/hundred_years_war.htm
> >
> >I'll have a look while I post this. (I have a horrible feeling of
> >"post in haste, repent at leisure.")
> >>
> >Regards
>
>  :-) Fair enough, but it has been an interesting discussion.
>
> Now I have retired from one job, I might propose that we do the
experiment:
> build a good longbow, you build your arrows, and I'll build mine, then, at
> a range of around 200 yards, we both fire them at a usenet troll,
(securely
> tied to an oak tree), and measure the loudness of the yelps with a decibel
> meter.
> (Just to keep it scientific and shed off charges of gratuitous
> violence.....)
>
> J.


rofl. Orly can record it and make a tape.

Perversely, Edith.

"Jpinny"  wrote in message 
news:yFoWe.6669$TA2.4502@fe09.lga...

>
> Heck, I'm not a scientist. This is a UK local ng not a climate change 
> group for specialists. But since I have a moment:
>
> I have read (Hell, I can't remember where. It might have been Time 
> magazine or National Geographic in the doctor's) that climate change does 
> endanger the North Atlantic drift of the Gulf Stream which gives Britain 
> its relatively mild winters. I spent 42+ winters in England and Scotland, 
> and I know them well. They're perishing enough, damp and draughty, dark 
> and depressing.
>
> I have spent 5 winters at the same latitude as Barcelona and experienced 
> long, deep cold spells which are unheard of in Britain, where a couple of 
> days at -17C wind chill is a rarity even in Aberdeen. That's a piece of 
> piss in North America, where it can be like that for weeks on end, so that 
> your ground looks like mince with freezer burn. It's so bloody cold that 
> the snow evaporates without even turning to water. You get an electric 
> shock just climbing out of your car.
>
> I MAY have to travel to Ottawa in January/February next year for visa 
> renewal. The latitude is the same as about Paris, roughly. The prospect 
> rather intimidates me. The kind of temps there are such that I haven't 
> encountered except with windchill at the top of an alp at 4,000m at 
> Christmas. I'm sure Johnny will advise me.
>
>  You might be surprised at how attractive Europe is to Americans in the 
> Winter - it's so bloody mild and it's a bargain. They'll rush to Rome or 
> Barcelona in February, while Boston and New York are still knee deep in 
> snow. If the Gulf Stream changes course, Britain, Ireland and Northern 
> Europe will suffer desperate cold and you can forget about snowdrops in 
> February and daffodils for Mothering Sunday if it's in March.
>
> There has been a lot of severe activity in the mid Atlantic recently, 
> where all these hurricanes originate. The currents are subject to the spin 
> of the earth and the impact of temperature change and salination on water 
> density. If Arctic Waters warm and expand, they will almost certainly 
> affect the flow of warm tropical waters northward.
>

For what it's worth, I've read the same sort of stuff and I've come to the 
same sort of conclusions.

ally

a l l y wrote:

> "Jpinny"  wrote in message news:XL3We.6526>>
> 
>>It must have to be cleaned out. Recycled cooking fat will have all sorts 
>>of debris in it.
> 
> 
> Oh yes, it goes through some sort of processing first.  You can't just fill 
> up your tank at the chip shop! I haven't actually smelled it myself, but 
> have been told by those who use it that there is a definite odour.
> 
> ally 
> 
> 

I was told by someone who does use it, that you can buy big drums of 
cooking oil really cheaply from Indian restaurant suppliers and the 
like, and use that without any problems, tho in winter you need to fit a 
heater to the pipes to make it start, or start on normal diesel then 
change over to the cooking oil. He said a kit was about 200, but the 
fuel bills tumble.
The worse problem is that you have to transport the stuff home and 
decant it into useful sized containers.

He reckoned that in an emergency he could indeed stop at a chippy and 
scrounge enough oil to get home on, said he`d need to strain it through 
some old tights to get the scraps out...  And the exhaust does smell of 
fish apparently.

Piscianly
Ron O'Yorkie


-- 
<insert blurb here>
www.lunevalleyaudio.com

I think this is the fellow who was the lecturer. This website 
would take days to read everything. I don't think it's 
specifically related to the lectures he was giving last year in 
Canada but it is obvious from this website what sort of chap the 
guy is. Check out the essays and the 'bush and god' links for 
instance.

http://www.nonzero.org/index.htm

Johnny-investigator

"Jpinny"  wrote in message 
news:JOzWe.2967$zN6.1195@fe10.lga...

>
> Jp-had-a-Canadian-penny-returned-by-supermarket-checkout-boy-yesterday.
>


Yesterday Steve found a dime inside the case of a sax he'd bought off eBay. 
We were quite excited.

ally-easily-pleased

> I'll have a look while I post this. (I have a horrible
> feeling of "post in haste, repent at leisure.") 


I just commited that sin. It's not Robert Wright but Ronald 
Wright.

http://www.ubc.ca/talkofthetown/2004/fall/wright.html

There's just too many Wrights to get the right Wright right. It 
was the Massey lectures that I was listening to on the CBC radio 
program "Ideas".

Johnny-all-confused

<Johnny@ominous.portent> wrote in message
news:43316181$0$22766$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com...

> > I'll have a look while I post this. (I have a horrible
> > feeling of "post in haste, repent at leisure.")
>
> I just commited that sin. It's not Robert Wright but Ronald
> Wright.
>
> http://www.ubc.ca/talkofthetown/2004/fall/wright.html
>
> There's just too many Wrights to get the right Wright right. It
> was the Massey lectures that I was listening to on the CBC radio
> program "Ideas".
>
> Johnny-all-confused


and

http://www.northwestscience.co.uk/about/02_higham.asp

Edith Headache

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 01:13:56 +0100, Sleepalot  wrote:


>JH  wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 01:15:14 +0100, Sleepalot  wrote:
>>
>>>I would suggest (from f=ma) that a given archer can achieve
>>>a greater range with a lighter arrow.
>>
>>Hmm, yes but in terms of hunting, E= 1/2 (mass) x (velocity)^2 
>
>That tells me that a lighter, faster arrow will hit harder,
>which complements my claim.


Sorry, what is needed is mass and velocity so that the total energy is
greater.
If you double the velocity you quadruple the energy, but if you double the
mass you only double the energy.

The trouble is using the materials of 2000 years ago, .... it was easier to
increase the mass, than increase the velocity

Look up the relative effectiveness of longbows vs crossbows in terms of
penerating ability.

J.

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:12:32 +0100, JH wrote:


> Now I have retired from one job, I might propose that we do the 
> experiment: build a good longbow, you build your arrows, and I'll 
> build mine, then, at a range of around 200 yards, 


Ah but you've changed the rules again. Previous discussion as been at 
maximum range for the system not a fixed one. My instinct tells me 
that the heavier arrow will be more effective, within it's range, than 
a lighter one. A lighter arrow may have a longer range but have less 
killing power at the extremity of that range.


> we both fire them at a usenet troll, (securely tied to an oak tree), 
> and measure the loudness of the yelps with a decibel meter. 


A very good experiment and I'd love to see it carried out but with the 
target at a fixed distance and at the range limit.

Did anyone see the five prog the other night about weapons? Lovely 
longbow and an amazing archer. He had 6 arrows all within about 6' of 
each other at 200 yds or so. The target was a normal roadworks sign, 
one arrow punctured the metal sign no problem. They also showed a 
modern snipers rifle, the round was about 6" long and nearly an inch 
in dia, more like a small shell than a bullet! Accurate and lethal at 
some silly range like 2 miles...

-- 
Cheers                                              new5pam@howhill.com
Dave.                                             pam is missing e-mail

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 22:19:48 +0100, Russell W. Barnes wrote:


>> I have cabel TV and I can't get shite on it.
>
> I was given to understand that there was plenty of shite on cable 
> TV...


There is plenty on satellite and for free. Shite is still shite even 
if it's free.

-- 
Cheers                                              new5pam@howhill.com
Dave.                                             pam is missing e-mail

JH  wrote:
[snip]

> :-) Fair enough, but it has been an interesting discussion.


I've enjoyed it. :)


>Now I have retired from one job, I might propose that we do the experiment:
>build a good longbow, you build your arrows, and I'll build mine, then, at
>a range of around 200 yards, we both fire them at a usenet troll, (securely
>tied to an oak tree), and measure the loudness of the yelps with a decibel
>meter. 
>(Just to keep it scientific and shed off charges of gratuitous
>violence.....)


Karl Popper would be proud. :)

I had another go at a model, but I still haven't sussed out
how to get range...

[Note: when you pull on a bowstring, the force you apply is 
opposed by the bow. As these two forces are equal and 
opposite, I can't calculate them, so I had to do the following...]

Mount a bow horizontally, and suspend a mass of 60kg from it.
Deflection produced in bow    d  = 0.5m
g=10 m/s/s
Downward force   f  = mgh = 60 x 10 x 0.5 = 300N

[Note: so, if you draw this bow to the same distance (0.5m)
you'll have to use the same ammount of force.
When an arrow is fired, as the bow resumes it's normal
shape, the force reduces to zero, so we'll have to use the
average force acting on the arrow.]

Average force acting on arrow = (300 + 0)/ 2  = 150N
Energy imparted to arrow  Ein = fd = 150 x 0.5 = 75J

Ok, so now we take three arrows and fire them vertically.
Arrow mass = 0.08kg , 0.12kg, 0.16kg

Kinetic energy of arrow Ek = 1/2mv2 = Ein
so v2 = 2 Ein/m 
v2 =       2 x 75/0.08 , 2 x 75/0.12 , 2 x 75/0.16   (m/s)2
v2 =                1875 ,  1250  ,  937.5 (m/s)2
and v =          43.30,  35.35,   30.62   m/s
(or                    96.86,  79.08,   68.49  mph)

[Note: due to my limited brain, I couldn't calculated the height
to which each arrow would fly, so I calculated the height from
which I'd have to drop the arrows for them to reach the previously
calculated velocities - which ammounts to the same thing.] 

From  v2 + u2 = 2as,  
the height to which the arrow travels,  s = (v2 + u2)/2a

s =  (1875 + 0)/2 x 10,   (1250 + 0)/2 x 10,  (937.5 + 0)/2 x 10   m
s =       93.75,    62.50,    46.88   m               

momentum = mv  = 3.46,  4.74,  4.90   kgm/s

(A physics textbook example was a bullet of 8g at 800m/s
which gives a momentum of 6.4 kgm/s)


-- 
Sleepalot   aa #1385

"Dave Liquorice"  wrote in message
news:nyyfbegfubjuvyypbz.in78c11.pminews@news.howhill.com...

> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 22:19:48 +0100, Russell W. Barnes wrote:
>
> >> I have cabel TV and I can't get shite on it.
> >
> > I was given to understand that there was plenty of shite on cable
> > TV...
>
> There is plenty on satellite and for free. Shite is still shite even
> if it's free.
>
> --
> Cheers                                              new5pam@howhill.com
> Dave.                                             pam is missing e-mail


It's about the only thing that is free these days.

Edith

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:44:48 +0100, Sleepalot  wrote:


>JH  wrote:
>[snip]
>> :-) Fair enough, but it has been an interesting discussion.
>
>I've enjoyed it. :)
>
>>Now I have retired from one job, I might propose that we do the experiment:
>>build a good longbow, you build your arrows, and I'll build mine, then, at
>>a range of around 200 yards, we both fire them at a usenet troll, (securely
>>tied to an oak tree), and measure the loudness of the yelps with a decibel
>>meter. 
>>(Just to keep it scientific and shed off charges of gratuitous
>>violence.....)
>
>Karl Popper would be proud. :)
>
>I had another go at a model, but I still haven't sussed out
>how to get range...
>
>[Note: when you pull on a bowstring, the force you apply is 
>opposed by the bow. As these two forces are equal and 
>opposite, I can't calculate them, so I had to do the following...]
>
>Mount a bow horizontally, and suspend a mass of 60kg from it.
>Deflection produced in bow    d  = 0.5m
>g=10 m/s/s
>Downward force   f  = mgh = 60 x 10 x 0.5 = 300N
>
>[Note: so, if you draw this bow to the same distance (0.5m)
>you'll have to use the same ammount of force.
>When an arrow is fired, as the bow resumes it's normal
>shape, the force reduces to zero, so we'll have to use the
>average force acting on the arrow.]
>
>Average force acting on arrow = (300 + 0)/ 2  = 150N
>Energy imparted to arrow  Ein = fd = 150 x 0.5 = 75J
>
>Ok, so now we take three arrows and fire them vertically.
>Arrow mass = 0.08kg , 0.12kg, 0.16kg
>
>Kinetic energy of arrow Ek = 1/2mv2 = Ein
>so v2 = 2 Ein/m 
>v2 =       2 x 75/0.08 , 2 x 75/0.12 , 2 x 75/0.16   (m/s)2
>v2 =                1875 ,  1250  ,  937.5 (m/s)2
>and v =          43.30,  35.35,   30.62   m/s
>(or                    96.86,  79.08,   68.49  mph)
>
>[Note: due to my limited brain, I couldn't calculated the height
>to which each arrow would fly, so I calculated the height from
>which I'd have to drop the arrows for them to reach the previously
>calculated velocities - which ammounts to the same thing.] 
>


 I think you are getting bogged down.

Work in pulling the bow (energy stored in the bow)

= kinetic energy of the arrow when it has just left the bow
(ignore heat and sound energy losses.) So

1) Average F x pull distance = 1/2 x m x v^2 this is the same for any arrow
and depends on the bow and the strength of the archer.
What counts is the energy left at the end of the flight.
You need to measure the velocity at impact. I still maintain a light arrow
will loose velocity more quickly than a heavy one.

As to how high they would go.

v^2 = u^2 + 2ah Where v = 0 at the top, and a = g and h is the height.

v is calculated from 1) so a lighter arrow will go higher, as the height is
dependant on the initial velocity, which will be slower for heavy arrow.
But taking air resistance into account on the way down WILL IT KILL AS WELL
AS A HEAVY ONE?

Hmm.... back to my accounts: the tax man is breathing down my neck.....

J.